No worries, remember the philosopher St James? Suddenly without warning he strangely disappeared or died which I doubt and You contested that at the time if I remember correctly.
I bring him up in connection to something relevant of what we are talking about here today.
The ideas of infinity were broadly and mathematically were discussed, and I bring that up in terms of defining wjat infinity is. (Bound , or unbound)
The point I am trying to make is, that I expressed my being an Intuitionist, and unfortunately they can only learn backwards-which is in direct opposition to "normal’ progressive learning. The same kind of idea as with the Korean language reading and writing to what is customary. So that is a serious block not to be .minimized.
So that’s part of I think Darling had against me. Not my fault.
At the same time, ALL learning has been mostly didactic, deductive up to at least Leibnitz through the Oxford language analysts of the 20th th century. That is confirming/confirming pro Len of a possible connection between the psychology of philosophy and vica versa.
Now to get to Your point.
Given what You have written, and based on the blocks between so called intuitionists and nihilist, it is not that there is no connection or, even affinity towards, but the missing pieces are more prone to be discovered by going back-to the source, and starting with that, but not teleologoxally or ‘objectively’.
And that is where we both stand without knowing , or REAlizing IT.
What is that IT? Well that goes into an expansive and protracted field , which needs to be guaranteed , in order to become consensualised.
Emnededness(Polanyi) of whom I dreamed about 5 years ago, in an unseen albeit auditory dream, I honestly believe, and I recall You poo
Pooing it.
So if WE want to pursue this , we need other participants, so as to arrive at a consensual base.
The whole thing may only have one over reaching problem: the avaibiliry for the requisite time.